In a criminal organization that committed a particularly large financial detrimental misappropriation of funds and other felony criminal offenses against Miklós Hagyó, and his companions at the Central Investigating Chief Prosecutor's Office on No. Inv. 477/2010. in an ongoing criminal case according to the penal-enforcment organization my authority became aware of, that the unmarried partner of Miklós Hagyó preliminary arrested suspect, II. V., - who within the meaning of Cp. 43.§ (3) paragraph b) point, only under supervision, or under control can keep in touch - as legal representative, several times without supervision contacted the inmate.

In the context of contact among the document received by the Central Investigating Chief Prosecutor's Office dated on the 6th of August 2010. with two different content of authorizations can be found:

In one of them Miklós Hagyó authorized II. V., as "legal representative" , that before the Metropolitan Court that on No.19.P.25425/2010. ongoing proceeding, provide his representation. According to the information of the Metropolitan Penal-Enforcement Institution, this authorization Miklós Hagyó detainee personally handed to his preceptor.

In the second, Miklós Hagyó authorized II. V. , to exercise his rights of ownership in his related business part of WIRTASS Ltd. as well as at the general meeting of the company represents him with full authority. Referring to the latter authorization, II. V. , several times as a "legal representative" has applied for a widening of eligibility contact, which Miklós Hagyó with his statement also confirms on the 17th of August 2010.

On each authorization includes in this present criminal case Miklós Hagyó's suspect acting as defense counsel Dr. Viktor Szűcs attorney countersignature, of which - taking into account the Law on the Bar 1998th year. XI. 27th Law § (3) paragraph - it follows that the documents the lawyer, as well as with his office contribution were established.

The first mentioned "legal authorization" due to a lawyer countersignature of the Civil Procedure 1953. Act III. Laws rules governing civil litigation representation formally corresponds (fully considered evidence of conclusive private document), based on the information received by phone from the law firm's employees however, II.V. has no legal qualifications, therefore obviously can not be a legal representative, in this regard that document contains false data.

This is supported by that fact, according to the Metropolitan Court provided written information in the "legal power of attorney" on designated case number pending civil proceeding - in which Miklós Hagyó, and II. V., both of them are claimants - the claimants acting personally, mandate to their representation has not been given.

The b) point of Cp. 43.§ (3) paragraph, to II.V., as relative, - under supervision and control - grants eligibility to contact Miklós Hagyó, therefore reasonable grounds for believing that the two above-mentioned authorization's aim - is subject to that the legal representative authorization to the court were not even submitted - in addition to these entitlements further contact options were to procure.

The I. phrase of Cp. 43.§ (3) paragraph a) point, explicitly and exclusively only the accused in custody in criminal cases acting defense counsel has eligibility to contact without supervision. Despite according the available data II.V., the already incorrect reference to the quality of legal representative in some cases unlawfully in criminal cases due to acting as defense counsel, came into contact with Miklós Hagyó inmate without supervision.

Based on a comparison of all of the facts and circumstances, and also taking into account that the authorization in question made with the assistance of a lawyer, reasonable grounds for believing, that to indicate the quality of the legal representatives of the authorized not by mistake, but it has been targeted.

All these datas are based on reasonable grounds for believing, of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided contact eligibility way to circumvent this, the possibility of the uncontrolled contact in order to create may have been made, which through logical conclusions the corrupt contact - that has already been reported in suspicion, and yet-undiscovered evidence of the crime, and the accused exploration of undermining his corrupt relations - could serve and it could create a foundation.

To summarize the above displayed, the following conclusions can be drawn:

In a criminal organization that committed a particularly large financial detrimental misappropriation of funds and other felony criminal offenses against Miklós Hagyó, and his companions at the Central Investigating Chief Prosecutor's Office on No. Inv. 477/2010. ongoing investigation Miklós Hagyó preliminary arrested suspect, in his written authorization dated on the 6th of August 2010, his unmarried partner II.V., who is legally not qualified, is empowered, to act as a legal representative before the Metropolitan Court on No.19.P.25425/2010. started civil proceeding. The procuration signed by Miklós Hagyó as authorizing person, and by II.V. as authorized, on the 12th of August 2010. in the above-mentioned crime Miklós Hagyó's acting as the authorized defense counsel Dr. Viktor Szűcs lawyer, countersigned the document by the placement of his signature and his lawyer seal.

According to the available data, II.V., at the time of the authorization did not have a law degree, therefore, would have not acted as a legal representative, that is, in this respect the authorization - with regard to the legal representative quality of II.V.,- contains false data. The authorization containing false data Miklós Hagyó, in order to to verify the eligibility of contact with II.V., submitted to the Metropolitan Penal-Enforcement Institution in September 2010., according to which the custodial institution to Miklós Hagyó detainee unduly - several times as his common-law wife way beyond what she is entitled, without supervision - provided opportunity to contact II.V.

This act is contrary to the Criminal Code. 276th §, may take suspicion of private document forgery offense, which the authorization submitted Miklós Hagyó, as offender, while the instrument maker and counter-signing dr. Viktor Szűcs lawyer, as well as II.V., as authorized signatory to the document committed as abettor. Making the authorization in cooperation and the use of it the qualifications of all persons, and earlier and present due to their job positions (Deputy Mayor, lawyer, etc) - already from the simple grammatical interpretation and the contained terms of the authorization, that is, based on the words casual meaning - should possess knowledge about , that a person legally not qualified shall not provide legal representation. On this basis, I suggest to make denunciation at the competent and having jurisdiction investigating authority.

In addition to the above facts and circumstances, with regard to Miklós Hagyó suspect, may give grounds for on one hand, the pre-trial detention Cp. 129.§ (2) paragraph in a) point to determine the specified unusual reason, (during the procedure against him another, punishable by imprisonment intentional criminal offense procedure was initiated) and further can strengthen the coercive measure the existence of special reasons of Cp. 129.§ (2) pargraph c) point, (through the corrupt contact to frustrate endeavor of the evidentiary procedure).

Because of the above grounds for believing that Miklós Hgyó, and II.V., that by the Cp. rights granted to them by evading contact, maintained a corrupt relationship, and thus they have attempted to frustrate the procedure evidence, therefore their contact should be prohibited, well as should be limited of safely controllable extent.

Based on the above - tabled by the defense attorney, concerning the unclear ownership situation of phone calls, also subject to previous contact request - it is probable, that in pre-trial detention Miklós Hagyó, using the contact with Dr. Viktor Szűcs authorized defense counsel, seeks to frustrate the procedure, as well as suspicion is well-founded, that Miklós Hagyó, with the active assistance of the lawyer another, punishable by imprisonment committed an intentionally crime, the basis of which - taking into account the Cp. 135.§ (4) paragraph b) and c) points - possibly should be required to exclude the defense counsel, as well as to launch a disciplinary action against him.

Since the subordinates of the penal-enforcement institution to Miklós Hagyó and II.V. based on the submitted authorization contrary with the rules of Cp. - and compromised the effectiveness of evidence - made uncontrolled contact possible, therefore, to investigate this failure, should initiate disciplinary action, as well as use indication to the Metropolitan Prosecutor's Office Criminal Litigation and Penal- enforcement Compliance Surveillance Affairs Department.

I note that the Metropolitan Penal-enforcement Institution to Miklós Hagyó, with his former spouse, and with II.V., provided opportunity to contact despite the fact, that taking into account the termination of marriage she is no longer considered as a relative.